ITAT Judgment contain Income Tax related Judgments from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Across India which includes ITAT Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkutta, Hyderabad etc.
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that institutions engaged in preservation of environment fall under a specific charitable limb under Section 2...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of ...
Income Tax : The issue concerns massive backlog in ITAT caused by unfilled positions and delayed appointments. The intervention highlights that...
Income Tax : A representation seeks doubling the SMC threshold due to inflation and higher dispute values. The key takeaway is that increasing ...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that a gift deed alone cannot establish legitimacy under Section 68. It directed fresh scrutiny of the donor’s...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proving cessation of liability. The Tribunal found that f...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of a new flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement does no...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that scrutiny notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the entire assessment void ab in...
Income Tax : The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as une...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi has revised its hearing notice protocols. Physical notices will now be sent only once, with subsequent dates availa...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Income Tax : Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice-President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as President of th...
Income Tax : Ministry of Finance notified rules for appointment of members in various tribunals on 12.02.2020 in which practice of judicial and...
Income Tax : Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the remand report, the AO clearly stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Ac...
The Tribunal examined whether delayed filing of Form 67 can defeat a valid FTC claim. It ruled that Rule 128(9) is directory and FTC cannot be denied when substantive conditions are met.
The CPC taxed interest solely based on Form 26AS despite the assessee following the cash method. The Tribunal ruled that taxation requires verification of receipt and remanded the issue to the AO.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice for AY 2015–16 issued after 31 March 2022 was valid. The Tribunal held the notice time-barred and quashed the entire reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT held that reversal of MSMED Act interest cannot be taxed if the provision was never claimed as a deduction. The matter was remanded for verification, with directions to delete the addition if the claim is confirmed.
The ITAT held that penalty cannot be imposed where a capital loss claim was voluntarily withdrawn during assessment. Since no tax benefit was availed, the case did not attract section 271(1)(c).
The dispute concerned the head of taxation for interest received on enhanced land compensation. The Tribunal ruled that Section 28 interest is an accretion to compensation and cannot be assessed as income from other sources.
The ITAT held that cash expenditure cannot be disallowed merely by aggregating payments. Since no payment to any person on a single day crossed the statutory limit, the disallowance was deleted.
The issue was whether interest-free loans to group entities warranted transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal held that since business had not commenced and no income was earned, the adjustment was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited in demonetised notes cannot be taxed under Section 69A when it represents recorded business sales. The key takeaway is that duly accounted turnover cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to demonetisation.
The dispute arose from CPC denial of deduction due to late return filing. The Tribunal restored the matter, holding that the Assessing Officer must act based on the CCIT’s condonation decision.
